TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bush spares Libby from prison
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

mate, i dont care about the legal pedantries we are dealing with. the guy got sentenced to prison and the administration has let him off. pardon or not, he aint getting the sentence he was given by the court. that's all i care about. letting lackey's go free is completely unethical imo, especially given the nature of the case, and (again) im surprised at your one-eyed position on it. you'd think ol george hadn't made a single mistake from reading your posts.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Because he simply had the power to do so

yes.

even if Libby was pardoned, in the spirit of the law, yes.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN mate, i dont care about the legal pedantries we are dealing with.

then don't be shocked at my suprise regarding your one-eyed position on it.

if you admit that you are not fully aware of the details of this case and in addition to that, fully accept the Executive's powers of pardon then you'll have to excuse me for not taking some of your criticisms of Libby too seriously.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo then don't be shocked at my suprise regarding your one-eyed position on it. if you admit that you are not fully aware of the details of this case and in addition to that, fully accept the Executive's powers of pardon then you'll have to excuse me for not taking some of your criticisms of Libby too seriously.

i dont have one-eyed positions on anything, except trance and gaming. the details of the case are: he was found guilty and sentenced to time in prison. bush has let him roam free. im debating whether he SHOULD have done that, not whether he COULD.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo you want to talk about irrelavent? SAYS WHO? who ultimately has the right to say who is "rightfully punished"? i'll give you a hint.

Who? The idiot in the Oval Office? He has no "ultimate" right on who is "rightfully" punished. Having the power to communate or pardon does not give the president any ultimate right. It merely gives him the power to overturn convicted felons. I seem to remember quite a few rants by your Republican bretheren about Clinton's pardons. Again, is your righteous anger of such power only when a Democrat is President?

quote:

i don't care about the Donks. no one does but you here.

You really don't know just how far out on an island you truly are, do you?

Then again, that certain level of dementia is truly the crux of our modern day neoconservatives running the Republican Party and country.

quote:

you do not understand. any culpable obstruction would have resulted in further investigation in regards to the violation of the Espionage act, which happened, for years. after which no one was found in violation of any law prior to Libby's trial. not because Libby had prevented that from happening, but because no law was maliciously broken in the first place.

Again, how does one come to that conclusion given Fitzgerald's statement?:

quote:

(Libby's lies) ""made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions." http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...640&forumid=66&

You cannot twist the wording of that or the rationale of his conviction any other way, sorry.

quote:

thats just it. he didn't know there were hard-driven copies because he was caught stealing and destroying multiple hard copies of the same thing thinking that was the end of the copies. don't defend that bastard.

I'm not up to defending his actions, but I'll play your game and submit that there was no evidence you can obtain of his motive of trying to steal the real documents versus the copies that any trial has come up with, so he stands up to the mere fact that the only thing he stole were copies of docs. And again, that pales in comparison to lying to the FBI and Grand Jury and being convicted on 3 counts. You understand why he was given an "obstruction" of justice charge, right? It's kinda implied in the phrase itself.

quote:

i don't know. i just find it telling and odd, some of the misplaced rage around here.

I think I supported my outrage with Bush by demonstrating his hypocrisy by wanting mandatory minimum sentence laws and being stated not more than a month ago that he would not interfere. PLUS he also circumvented normal DOJ gu idelines on Commutations:

quote:

Section 1-2.113 Standards for Considering Commutation Petitions A commutation of sentence reduces the period of incarceration; it does not imply forgiveness of the underlying offense, but simply remits a portion of the punishment. It has no effect upon the underlying conviction and does not necessarily reflect upon the fairness of the sentence originally imposed. Requests for commutation generally are not accepted unless and until a person has begun serving that sentence. Nor are commutation requests generally accepted from persons who are presently challenging their convictions or sentences through appeal or other court proceeding. http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/petitions.htm

Damn, it's clear he doesn't respect the Legislative. Apparently he doesn't seem to give much of a shit about his own branch either.

quote:

i suppose after their job is done after the jurors reach a verdict. duh.

The jurors didn't have a say on the verdict for this, did they? If I recall, that was up to the judge, wasn't it? If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.

quote:

i was just letting people know how one of the Jurors felt about Waltons sentence. it's called perspective. life should not be viewed completely from your fever swamp.

Okay, how about letting us know how the rest of the jurors felt then?

quote:

no, but some of the more mentally challenged here that are not familiar with the American Justice System may need a refresher.

I wouldn't say they're mentally challenged � it's just a lack of knowledge about another country. No biggie.

quote:

what you are claiming with what Perino said and has said since is out of context as usual.

Hmmm, let's take a gander:

quote:

Q Does the President think at some point it would be appropriate just to speak out about this? The guy has been sentenced. I mean, is he going to run out the clock and wait for all the appeals to be done before the President of the United States speaks about a pretty important matter that was perpetrated by a member of his staff? MS. PERINO: What I can tell you is how the President reacted today, which is to say that he does feel terrible for them, he thinks they're going through a lot right now, they've been through a lot. But given the fact that the judge has set up a process for appeal and given the way that the President has handled this for the past year or so, he's not going to intervene.

So it depends on what your definition of "is" is?

quote:

thats for Federal level violent crime and narcotic jackass.

Oh, so the philosophy is somehow inconsistent then, and therefore only applies on the federal level and/or with narcotics? Seems rather consistent in context:

quote:

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is trying to roll back a Supreme Court decision by pushing legislation that would require prison time for nearly all criminals. The Justice Department is offering the plan as an opening salvo in a larger debate about whether sentences for crack cocaine are unfairly harsh and racially discriminatory. Republicans are seizing the administration's crackdown, packaged in legislation to combat violent crime, as a campaign issue for 2008. In a speech June 1 to announce the bill, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales urged Congress to reimpose mandatory minimum prison sentences against federal convicts -- and not let judges consider such penalties "merely a suggestion." Such an overhaul, in part, "will strengthen our hand in fighting criminals who threaten the safety and security of all Americans," Gonzales said in the speech, delivered three days before the FBI announced a slight national uptick in violent crime during 2006. Judges, however, were livid over the proposal to limit their power. "This would require one-size-fits-all justice," said US District Judge Paul G. Cassell, chairman of the Criminal Law committee of the Judicial Conference, the judicial branch's policy-making body.

But IOIYAR, right?

I've recognized this pattern of argument from you for some time now. The petty name calling is almost ineviteable, usually right around the time you make your usual exit. Rather than stoop down to your silly level, I'll allow a mod to make the judgement on your continual violation of Rule #2. I'd hope that despite our differences we finally started moving past those old habits. Guess I was wrong.

Finally, I couldn't agree more with this NYTimes op-ed:

quote:

Soft on Crime Published: July 3, 2007 When he was running for president, George W. Bush loved to contrast his law-abiding morality with that of President Clinton, who was charged with perjury and acquitted. For Mr. Bush, the candidate, �politics, after a time of tarnished ideals, can be higher and better.� Not so for Mr. Bush, the president. Judging from his decision yesterday to commute the 30-month sentence of I. Lewis Libby Jr. � who was charged with perjury and convicted � untarnished ideals are less of a priority than protecting the secrets of his inner circle and mollifying the tiny slice of right-wing Americans left in his political base. Mr. Libby was convicted of lying to federal agents investigating the leak of the name of a covert C.I.A. operative, Valerie Wilson. Mrs. Wilson�s husband, Joseph Wilson, was asked to investigate a central claim in Mr. Bush�s drive to war with Iraq � whether Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa. Mr. Wilson concluded that Iraq had not done that and had the temerity to share those conclusions with the American public. It seems clear from the record that Vice President Dick Cheney organized a campaign to discredit Mr. Wilson. And Mr. Libby, who was Mr. Cheney�s chief of staff, was willing to lie to protect his boss. That made Mr. Libby the darling of the right, which demanded that Mr. Bush pardon him. Those same Republicans have been rebelling against Mr. Bush, most recently on immigration reform, while Democrats in Congress have pursued an investigation into whether Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney lied about Iraq�s weapons programs. All of this put immense pressure on the president to do something before Mr. Libby went to jail. But none of it was justification for the baldly political act of commuting his sentence. Mr. Bush�s assertion that he respected the verdict but considered the sentence excessive only underscored the way this president is tough on crime when it�s committed by common folk. As governor of Texas, he was infamous for joking about the impending execution of Karla Faye Tucker, a killer who became a born-again Christian on death row. As president, he has repeatedly put himself and those on his team, especially Mr. Cheney, above the law. Within minutes of the Libby announcement, the same Republican commentators who fulminated when Paris Hilton got a few days knocked off her time in a county lockup were parroting Mr. Bush�s contention that a fine, probation and reputation damage were �harsh punishment� enough for Mr. Libby. Presidents have the power to grant clemency and pardons. But in this case, Mr. Bush did not sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice. He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/03/o...dpc&oref=slogin

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN the details of the case are: he was found guilty and sentenced to time in prison. bush has let him roam free.

wrong. the details involving the call to pardon (or commute in this case) involve ALL aspects of not just the case in question, not just the law in question, but the defendant in question as well.

quote:

im debating whether he SHOULD have done that, not whether he COULD.

i understand that. that is why it confounds me as to why you would claim to be so fair in your judgement when what little you consider was not even at issue with Libby's verdict, much less the sentence.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo wrong. the details involving the call to pardon (or commute in this case) involve ALL aspects of not just the case in question, not just the law in question, but the defendant in question as well.

That changes nothing in regards to Libby being convicted on 3 felony counts of obstruction and purjury. You simply cannot escape it. What's also inescapable is Bush's record of commuting, or sincere lackthereof:

quote:

I find Bush's action very troubling because of the obvious special treatment Libby received. President Bush has set a remarkable record in the last 6+ years for essentially never exercising his powers to commute sentences or pardon those in jail. His handful of pardons have been almost all symbolic gestures involving cases decades old, sometimes for people who are long dead. Come to think of it, I don't know if Bush has ever actually used his powers to get one single person out of jail even one day early. If there are such cases, they are certainly few and far between. So Libby's treatment was very special indeed. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_...html#1183422066

That's Orrin Kerr, a REPUBLICAN law professor at GW University.

What we haven't seen from you or Bush so far is a true logical rationale for why Libby was a "very special" case of treatment, so much so that Bush circumvented a decision by a jury of Libby's peers, a prosecution by an appointee from his Administration, and a sentencing from a judge from his own Republican party. We already knew that Fitz' time of sentencing was appropriate, and even if you felt it wasn't in lines with the recommendations of the probation office saying 15-22 months, Bush felt the need to hop skip right over that recommended time as well. He also skipped right over the DOJ guidelines, and went back on his word reported by Perino not to get involved, let alone pushing for mandatory sentences for "real" crooks (i.e. everyone else in the world who doesn't work for him, I guess).

quote:

i understand that. that is why it confounds me as to why you would claim to be so fair in your judgement when what little you consider was not even at issue with Libby's verdict, much less the sentence.

Well considering that Bush has essentially blocked (i.e. obstructed) the ability for Congress to have a true hearing on the matter and thus allow Libby to plea the 5th and avoid the risk of being cited for contempt throughout his entire appeal process (which will likely take us right out of Bush's presidency), that's a bit difficult to see how we could know anything else outside of Libby's deliberate obstruction of justice now. Kinda neat how that works for Cheney, doesn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Who? The idiot in the Oval Office? He has no "ultimate" right on who is "rightfully" punished. It merely gives him the power to overturn convicted felons.

he does. the Executive's power of pardon can go way beyond just "overturning convicted felons"

the President can pardon anyone at anytime whether convicted or even standing trial awaiting conviction or aqquital, whether they want to be pardoned or not for U.S. crime.

i think William Jefferson Clinton will be better equipped at explaining what those powers are and where they are derived from:

quote:

First, I want to make some general comments about pardons and commutations of sentences. Article II of the Constitution gives the president broad and unreviewable power to grant "Reprieves and Pardons" for all offenses against the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that the pardon power is granted "[t]o the [president] . . ., and it is granted without limit" (United States v. Klein). Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared that "[a] pardon . . . is . . . the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by [the pardon] . . ." (Biddle v. Perovich). A president may conclude a pardon or commutation is warranted for several reasons: the desire to restore full citizenship rights, including voting, to people who have served their sentences and lived within the law since; a belief that a sentence was excessive or unjust; personal circumstances that warrant compassion; or other unique circumstances.

quote:

I seem to remember quite a few rants by your Republican bretheren about Clinton's pardons

Clinton pardoned convicted terrorist! with sentences ranging from 35 to 105 years! i mean wtf do you expect?

quote:

Again, is your righteous anger of such power only when a Democrat is President?

i don't know, is it?

my righteous anger is directed at people like you, not Presidents.

quote:

You really don't know just how far out on an island you truly are, do you? Then again, that certain level of dementia is truly the crux of our modern day neoconservatives running the Republican Party and country.

whatever. it's a big island. this is not about politics.

quote:

Again, how does one come to that conclusion given Fitzgerald's statement?: You cannot twist the wording of that or the rationale of his conviction any other way, sorry.

just because Fitzgerald said it in his sentencing brief does not make it so. he didn't prove anyone was covert and he didn't even attempt to. there was nothing malicious he found in the investigation.

if anything Fitzgerald statement about Libby's obstruction was static in nature which led to him further investigating the subject in which he found nothing.

quote:

I'm not up to defending his actions, but I'll play your game and submit that there was no evidence you can obtain of his motive of trying to steal the real documents versus the copies that any trial has come up with

there was no trial. he pleaded to avoid a trial. in fact he gave up his BAR credentials this year to avoid cross-examination in another trial regarding his theft of classified documents in a Senate investigation into his role in the events leading up to 9/11.

quote:

that pales in comparison to lying to the FBI and Grand Jury and being convicted on 3 counts.

does it?

what are sentencing guidlines for that say if he had plead not guilty? i'm sure you'd be all over those numbers in a heartbeat wouldn't ya?

quote:

I think I supported my outrage with Bush by demonstrating his hypocrisy by wanting mandatory minimum sentence laws and being stated not more than a month ago that he would not interfere. PLUS he also circumvented normal DOJ gu idelines on Commutations:

he didn't circumvent anything. his powers are greater than Section 1-2.113 Standards for Considering Commutation Petitions.

now if someone else wants to ask for a commuted sentence that is another story entirely and Section 1-2.113 Standards for Considering Commutation Petitions will generally apply.

this is nothing new. Presidents have done this sort of thing several hundreds of times before.

quote:

The jurors didn't have a say on the verdict for this, did they? If I recall, that was up to the judge, wasn't it? If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.

the jurors determine the verdict or in which case they can't, the Judge can determine a mistrial.

the Judge in this case determines the sentence.

i don't know what you are getting at.

quote:

Oh, so the philosophy is somehow inconsistent then, and therefore only applies on the federal level and/or with narcotics? Seems rather consistent in context:

i don't care what whoever wrote that article thinks! the President's reccomendations for Federal mandatory minimum guidelines applies to VIOLENT CRIMINALS AND NARCOTICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MAKE A F**KING DISTINCTION THAT DOESN"T EVEN BEGIN TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT FFS!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 That changes nothing in regards to Libby being convicted on 3 felony counts of obstruction and purjury. You simply cannot escape it. What's also inescapable is Bush's record of commuting, or sincere lackthereof:

this is between me and him.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Well considering that Bush has essentially blocked (i.e. obstructed) the ability for Congress to have a true hearing on the matter and thus allow Libby to plea the 5th and avoid the risk of being cited for contempt throughout his entire appeal process (which will likely take us right out of Bush's presidency), that's a bit difficult to see how we could know anything else outside of Libby's deliberate obstruction of justice now. Kinda neat how that works for Cheney, doesn't it?

shut up.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo this is between me and him. . . . shut up.

You been drinking tonight? It shows.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider You been drinking tonight? It shows.

nope. i just would rather have pkcRAISTLIN respond to my responses to pkcRAISTLIN thats all.

if pkcRAISTLIN wants Opus to speak for him i'll respect that.

if Opus wants chime in to them otherwise, f**k him. i'm gonna tell him to get f**ked.

quote:

Originally posted by bubble this news makes me embarrassed to be an american.

were you an adult when Clinton was President? seriously. i'm not being an asshole. were you?

quote:

Originally posted by bubble to be fair, i was embarrassed then too, but it's not a fair comparison. it's one thing to carry on democratisation crusade across the globe and subsequently hypocritically circumvent the judicial process, while it's another to cum on some intern's dress, or lie about it, get convicted and face the jury as clinton did and not get forced from office. i don't recall that clinton beat his chest about morality like bush has about suggesting that anyone responsible for any violations would get punished.

no dude, i'm not talking about Clintons lying to Congress. he deserved what he got but i don't think i've ever made that an issue in this forum other than maybe in jest.

no, i'm talking about Clinton's record on pardons. this is a PARTIAL list of his pardons. alphabetically. notice it only goes to H.

this list does not include his 1999 pardons of 16 FALN terrorists convicted and sentenced anywhere from 35 to 105 years in prison.



Name, Home Town, Offenses:

ALLEN, Verla Jean Everton, Arkansas False statements to agency of United States

ALTIERE, Nicholas M. Las Vegas, Nevada Importation of cocaine

ALTSCHUL, Bernice Ruth Sherman Village, California Conspiracy to commit money laundering

ANDERSON, Joe, Jr. Grove Hill, Alabama Income tax evasion

ANDERSON, William Sterling Spartanburg, South Carolina Conspiracy to defraud a federally insured financial institution, false statements to a federally insured financial institution, wire fraud

AZIZKHANI, Mansour T. Huntsville, Alabama Conspiracy and making false statements in bank loan applications

BABIN, Cleveland Victor, Jr. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Conspiracy to commit offense against the United States by utilizing the U.S. mail in furtherance of a scheme to defraud

BAGLEY, Chris Harmon Harrah, Oklahoma Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine

BANE, Scott Lynn Mahomet, Illinois Unlawful distribution of marijuana

BARBER, Thomas Cleveland Hampton, Florida Issuing worthless checks

BARGON, Peggy Ann Monticello, Illinois Violation of the Lacey Act, violation of the Bald Eagle Protection Act

BHATKA, Tansukhlal Income tax evasion
BLAMPIED, David Roscoe Ketchum, Idaho Conspiracy to distribute cocaine

BORDERS, William Arthur, Jr. Washington, D.C. Conspiracy to corruptly solicit and accept money in return for influencing the official acts of a federal district court judge (Alcee L. Hastings), and to defraud the United States in connection with the performance of lawful government functions; corruptly influencing, obstructing, impeding and endeavoring to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice, and aiding and abetting therein; traveling interstate with intent to commit bribery

BOREL, Arthur David Little Rock, Arkansas Odometer rollback

BOREL, Douglas Charles Conway, Arkansas Odometer rollback

BRABHAM, George Thomas Austin, Texas Making a false statement or report to a federally insured bank

BRASWELL, Almon Glenn Doravilla, Georgia Conspiracy to defraud government with respect to claims; perjury

BROWDER, Leonard Aiken, South Carolina Illegal dispensing of controlled substance and Medicaid fraud

BROWN, David Steven New York, New York Securities fraud and mail fraud

BURLESON, Delores Caroylene, aka Delores Cox Burleson Hanna, Oklahoma Possession of marijuana

BUSTAMANTE, John H. Cleveland, Ohio Wire fraud

CAMPBELL, Mary Louise Ruleville, Mississippi Aiding and abetting the unauthorized use and transfer of food stamps

CANDELARIA, Eloida False information in registering to vote

CAPILI, Dennis Sobrevinas Glendale, California Filing false statements in alien registration

CHAMBERS, Donna Denise Memphis, Tennessee Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, use of a telephone to facilitate cocaine conspiracy

CHAPMAN, Douglas Eugene Scott, Arkansas Bank fraud

CHAPMAN, Ronald Keith Scott, Arkansas Bank fraud

CHAVEZ, Francisco Larios Santa Ana, California Aiding and abetting illegal entry of aliens

CISNEROS, Henry G. (his Cabinet Secretary)

CLINTON, Roger (his brother)

COHN, Stuart Harris New Haven, Connecticut 1. Illegal sale of gold options
2. Illegal sale of silver options


COOPER, David Marc Wapakoneta, Ohio Conspiracy to defraud the government

COX, Ernest Harley, Jr. Pine Bluff, Arkansas Conspiracy to defraud a federally insured savings and loan, misapplication of bank funds, false statements

CROSS, John F., Jr. Little Rock, Arkansas Embezzlement by a bank employee

CUNNINGHAM, Rickey Lee Amarillo, Texas Possession with intent to distribute marijuana

DE LABIO, Richard Anthony Baltimore, Maryland Mail fraud, aiding and abetting

DEUTCH, John Described in January 19, 2001 information

DOUGLAS, Richard False statements

DOWNE, Edward Reynolds Conspiracy to commit wire fraud and tax evasion; securities fraud

DUDLEY, Marvin Dean Omaha, Nebraska False statements

DUNCAN, Larry Lee Branson, Missouri Altering an automobile odometer

FAIN, Robert Clinton Aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false corporate tax return

FERNANDEZ, Marcos Arcenio Miami, Florida Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana

FERROUILLET, Alvarez Interstate transport of stolen property, money laundering, false statements

FUGAZY, William Denis Harrison, New York Perjury in a bankruptcy proceeding

GEORGE, Lloyd Reid Mail fraud

GOLDSTEIN, Louis Las Vegas, Nevada Possession of goods stolen from interstate shipment

GORDON, Rubye Lee Tampa, Florida Forgery of U.S. Treasury checks

GREEN, Pincus Switzerland

HAMNER, Robert Ivey

>LINK<


i'm not defending Clintons record or much criticizing it.

remember Libby wasn't pardoned. now if Bush's commutation of Libby's jail time makes you "ashamed to be an American", well then, Clinton's record should make you want to shoot yourself in the chest with a 12 guage when you put it all in perspective wouldn't it?

no one was found to be in violation of the underlying investigation's Foreign Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act.

Plame's case was never intended to be made nor should it have been.

it was immaterial in his conviction yet he was sentenced as if it was. that is what is the fundamental issue at the heart of the Commutation.

Oh man

What a horribly unfunny joke.

Why is this even news? Just about every President pardons/commutes the sentences of the leutenants that helped and protected them. Democrats need to keep their mouths shut on this, just go look at Clinton's record on pardons.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Why is this even news? Just about every President pardons/commutes the sentences of the leutenants that helped and protected them. Democrats need to keep their mouths shut on this, just go look at Clinton's record on pardons.

I agree. We've seen far more egregious actions than this from many past administrations. And this is surely no surprise as, at least I thought, it was largely expected that Libby would be completely pardoned. He didn't even get off that lightly in this case.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo he does. the Executive's power of pardon can go way beyond just "overturning convicted felons" the President can pardon anyone at anytime whether convicted or even standing trial awaiting conviction or aqquital, whether they want to be pardoned or not for U.S. crime. i think William Jefferson Clinton will be better equipped at explaining what those powers are and where they are derived from:

You�re creating yet another straw man. I�m fully aware of the Presidential power to commute and pardon anyone they deem as fit, but that power is NOT what I am arguing about. Rather, I was arguing in reference to the fact that Libby was not rightfully punished for the crimes he committed.

The President having the ultimate power to overturn a sentencing (and yes, that includes Clinton) is completely lawful, but in no way is it necessarily ethically correct to arbitrarily do so. I feel this way not just towards Bush but towards nearly all Presidents including Clinton, so your righteousness to point out all the pardons from Clinton falls flat with me.

But again you�ve failed to answer why Bush seemingly felt so compelled to arbitrarily allow Libby to commutated while denying over 1,000 requests with crimes ranging all over the place in comparison to Libby�s lying to the FBI and obstructing justice in a FEDERAL case. What logical rationale do you have that places Libby over the rest of these, ESPECIALLY when Bush didn�t even bother with normal proceedings in accordance to the Justice Dept. and waited for all appeals proceedings to be concluded?

You also fail to answer why Bush completely ignored the parole board advise of 15-22 months jail time and felt it necessary for Libby to see no time at all.

quote:

Clinton pardoned convicted terrorist! with sentences ranging from 35 to 105 years! i mean wtf do you expect?

I expect your righteous anger to be directed towards any president who pardons people, including Bush who pardoned a few convicted DRUG felons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._George_W._Bush

Oh wait, you mean to tell me those mandatory sentencing laws Bush is pushing should only apply to people he doesn�t know or like?

quote:

i don't know, is it? my righteous anger is directed at people like you, not Presidents.

Then perhaps we should �expect� you and your neocon bretheren to not have a double-standard when Clinton holds his Constitutional pardoning power (which granted is not the same as commuted, but the result is very similar in this instance of no jail time).

quote:

whatever. it's a big island. this is not about politics.

It has everything to do about politics. You are standing and falling on the rationale of support for Bush actions simply because he can do so WITHOUT answering any sound reason as to why.

Is it really that difficult for you to question your Commander Guy? Jesus, I know robots who rebel against their makers more often than you.

quote:

just because Fitzgerald said it in his sentencing brief does not make it so. he didn't prove anyone was covert and he didn't even attempt to. there was nothing malicious he found in the investigation.

Jesus, Q., you�re worse than some of the creationists I�ve debated. You can�t hold your fucking water in one thread after another with me, failing to hold a coherent argument supported by evidence, but then you turn around, rinse and repeat with the same bullshit that was covered by me long ago.

Well come back and answer my posts in this thread, please:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...d=&pagenumber=2

Before you continue spewing more disproven bullshit again.

quote:

if anything Fitzgerald statement about Libby's obstruction was static in nature which led to him further investigating the subject in which he found nothing.

How does one find anything further when the main culprit of obstructing an investigation is, uhh, obstructing the investigation? Is that really that hard for you to decifer? Again, please tell me how you can divulge that rationale you gave out of this statement. Actually, let�s break it down real slow-like for you since you seem to be a bit hard of understanding:

quote:

(Libby's lies)

i.e. didn�t tell the truth

"made impossible[/QUOTE]

that means it�s not possible

quote:

an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked

that means it wasn�t possible to understand what Libby and those he worked with (i.e. he worked in the Vice President�s office) did

quote:

played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment

Meaning it was not possible to see how Libby and those he worked with (VP�s office) played a part in the disclosure (that means revealed) of information about the status of Valerie Plame (that�s Ms. Wilson) employment at the CIA, which as we know from both the CIA, confirmed by CIA employees testimony working with Plame, confirmed by the past two CIA directors, confirmed by Plame�s CIA testimony, confirmed by the Republican prosecutor, confirmed by the Republican judge, and confirmed by the law itself (to which you�re welcome at any time to go back to that thread and discuss otherwise) that she was in fact, covert, ALL BECAUSE OF THE LIES OF LIBBY.

That�s a lot of words. I�m sorry. I know that might be a bit difficult for you, but take your time going through that if you could. We�re not done though:

quote:

and about the motivations for their actions."

Meaning because of Libby�s lies, it wasn�t possible to see how Libby and those he worked with (VP�s office) played a part in the disclosure (that means revealed) of information about the status of Valerie Plame (that�s Ms. Wilson) employment at the CIA (covert status of finding WMD proliferation in Iraq and Iran) AND the reason WHY Libby and the people he worked with (VP�s office � yes that may definitely include Cheney) did what they did.

Can you tell me why they decided to out a CIA covert operative who�s job was to actually protect our country from WMD proliferation from those rogue nations like Iraq and Iran?

quote:

there was no trial. he pleaded to avoid a trial. in fact he gave up his BAR credentials this year to avoid cross-examination in another trial regarding his theft of classified documents in a Senate investigation into his role in the events leading up to 9/11. does it? what are sentencing guidlines for that say if he had plead not guilty? i'm sure you'd be all over those numbers in a heartbeat wouldn't ya?

Again the underlying crime was taking copies of documents rather than the documents themselves. You have added no evidence of substance but idle speculation as to why he took actions to give up his credentials and avoid a trial. Again, do you have DIRECT evidence that his intentions were to take ACTUAL docs? Please submit that now.

Regardless, if Berger was indignant and ignorant enough to believe he was that innocent of his crimes in the same manner that Libby was to believe he actually had a case, and if he was convicted of those crimes, I would fully support the conviction AND SENTENCE. Furthermore, I would be just as equally outraged if Bush or Clinton or any other president pardoned him for such crimes. And I wouldn�t be cheerleading for any president�s power of pardon/commute simply because he has the power to do so in the childish manner that you are exhibiting here for everyone.

quote:

he didn't circumvent anything. his powers are greater than Section 1-2.113 Standards for Considering Commutation Petitions. now if someone else wants to ask for a commuted sentence that is another story entirely and Section 1-2.113 Standards for Considering Commutation Petitions will generally apply.

Again I�m not arguing that the President doesn�t have the power to do what he did. No one is arguing that. What I am pointing out, however, that these actions by Bush or by any President for that matter are quite atypical and unpresidented.

You cannot argue with that by any stretch. Now is there any good rationale as to why he did this, other than �because he can� that you can give?

quote:

this is nothing new. Presidents have done this sort of thing several hundreds of times before.

Not in this manner. Again very atypical, but you�re welcome to point out where a president not more than a month ago stated he wouldn�t interfere, jumped right over the guidelines of the DOJ, didn�t even bother to wait for the appeals courts to finish up, and didn�t even bother REDUCING the sentence (after all he did state that his sentence was EXCESSIVE, not UNWARRANTED or UNNECESSARY) according to the parole board recommendations.

quote:

the jurors determine the verdict or in which case they can't, the Judge can determine a mistrial. the Judge in this case determines the sentence. i don't know what you are getting at.

My point is that you�re pulling someone out of the crowd that has no say on the sentencing procedures. You may as well pull the stenographer and ask for their opinion about sentencing because they hold just as much weight on the sentencing procedure as the juror. That�s why it�s a silly argument for you to hold, but if you want to continue holding it, please tell us how the remaining 11 other jurors felt just for shits and giggles.

quote:

i don't care what whoever wrote that article thinks! the President's reccomendations for Federal mandatory minimum guidelines applies to VIOLENT CRIMINALS AND NARCOTICS!!!!!!!!!!!!! MAKE A F**KING DISTINCTION THAT DOESN"T EVEN BEGIN TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT FFS!!!!!!!!!

Funny how you seemingly overlooked Bush�s pardons of narcotics dealers above. But again, considering this is the GOP�s mantra of being �tough on crime�, I guess it�s only the certain right kind of people they wanna be tough on (i.e. people that aren�t Republicans/Bush donors/whoever they arbitrarily love).

And it�s funny, how truly violent can one get for obstructing justice and lying to the FBI about their role and the VP�s office role in outing a covert CIA agent who�s job is to find WMD proliferation? The repurcussions of that have such a great potential of violent crime beyond all measure.

But I think you have to out of the 26% Bush approval rating crowd to kinda see that. Perhaps you should try a bit of a �different perspective� yourself for a change?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo this is between me and him.

Then PM his ass rather than argue out in public. Your posts are subject to anyone's answers. Sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo shut up.

Happy hangover?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo nope. i just would rather have pkcRAISTLIN respond to my responses to pkcRAISTLIN thats all. if pkcRAISTLIN wants Opus to speak for him i'll respect that. if Opus wants chime in to them otherwise, f**k him. i'm gonna tell him to get f**ked.

That's the second time you've thrown petty insults.

Don't you ever tire of not being a grown up and using a big-boy voice?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo no one was found to be in violation of the underlying investigation's Foreign Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act.

The investigation is ongoing by Congress and you know it. Furthermore, Bush himself had come out since that December 2005 NYTimes article and flat out stated that he's ignored FISA laws by not needing a warrant for his wiretaps.

Plus we've been through this bullshit all before, only to have you run away from yet another thread. I'm too tired to find that thread as well and ask you to continue posting there, but it would do you credit to cease with your refuted arguments that continually pop up later (like here)

quote:

Plame's case was never intended to be made nor should it have been.

Yes, because outing by the office of the Vice President a CIA covert officer who's fucking job is to protect our country from WMD proliferation in rogue nations like Iraq and Iran, and finding further examination of the role of the VP's office in their participation of coming out with this classified material on the CIA officer being obstructed by Cheney's top aide really isn't material to anyone who's an ardent, undying supporter of this failed Administration, is it?

quote:

it was immaterial in his conviction yet he was sentenced as if it was.

He was sentenced for fucking lying to the FBI and obstruction justice. What, those charges mean nothing to neocon supporters like you?

quote:

that is what is the fundamental issue at the heart of the Commutation.

And this point was essential to Libby's role and the importance of why he was investigated:

quote:

(Libby's lies) ""made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions."

Keep dancin', Q.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Why is this even news? Just about every President pardons/commutes the sentences of the leutenants that helped and protected them. Democrats need to keep their mouths shut on this, just go look at Clinton's record on pardons.

Because:

quote:

(Libby's lies) "made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions."

That's why.

I don't agree with any pardoning for that matter, but it's painfully obvious to anyone outside of Bush supporters (i.e. anyone that isn't in the 26% approval camp) that there was clearly much more to this case. Furthermore, Bush's actions are very atypical. As I stated to Q:

quote:

Not in this manner. Again very atypical, but you�re welcome to point out where a president not more than a month ago stated he wouldn�t interfere, jumped right over the guidelines of the DOJ, didn�t even bother to wait for the appeals courts to finish up, and didn�t even bother REDUCING the sentence (after all he did state that his sentence was EXCESSIVE, not UNWARRANTED or UNNECESSARY) according to the parole board recommendations.

Further backed up here:

quote:

For the first time in his presidency, Bush commuted a sentence without running requests through lawyers at the Justice Department, White House officials said. He also did not ask the chief prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, for his input, as routinely happens in cases routed through the Justice Department's pardon attorney. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/02/AR2007070202060.html?hpid=topnews

Commutation requests by the Justice Dept. �'generally are not accepted unless and until a person has begun serving that sentence,� and they are generally not granted to those appealing their convictions.�

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/02/AR2007070202060.html


and Bush's actions �seemed to catch Justice Department officials, and even some of Mr. Bush�s closest aides, off guard. � They were floored.�

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/03/washington/03bush.html

It's really the mantra of these neocons running our country - they are never wrong, nor will they EVER admit to any wrongdoing. Prosecuting them and having actual oversight of their actions is borderline treasonous to even think about according to them.

I'm fucking done with these twirps running our country, and judging by the rest of the country, most citizens are as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I agree. We've seen far more egregious actions than this from many past administrations. And this is surely no surprise as, at least I thought, it was largely expected that Libby would be completely pardoned. He didn't even get off that lightly in this case.

In truth I'm not surprised either, but given the situation in which it occurred:

quote:

where a president not more than a month ago stated he wouldn�t interfere, jumped right over the guidelines of the DOJ, didn�t even bother to wait for the appeals courts to finish up, and didn�t even bother REDUCING the sentence (after all he did state that his sentence was EXCESSIVE, not UNWARRANTED or UNNECESSARY) according to the parole board recommendations.

There's tons of speculation not just by Democrats as to why Bush did this. It's tempting as hell to think that the rationale is to keep Libby from being polled into Congressional hearings (i.e. he could successfully plead the 5th until the appeals process is finished up), but there simply isn't enough evidence to state that with certainty.

One still has to wonder exactly why Bush felt compelled to take such extraordinary measures to pull his sentence down to nothing while allowing more than 1,000 commute requests to be turned down.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.